User talk:Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Concerning SR-22 (insurance)....

.....I have given it a 3-month pending changes protection. This should help run things a bit more ....smoothly. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh cool. I didn't know pending changes had been implemented. Thanks! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gross negligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Recklessness (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

CNA Financial

Hi Mendaliv hope you are well!

I work at CNA insurance and we're working on our Wikipedia page (I'm in marketing). Although we appreciate your contributions, we're trying to maintain our brand and keep the page applicable to people looking to gain information about our company. Is there any way I can persuade you to stop inserting the criminal investigation paragraph to our page? It would be very helpful. Thank you for your consideration.

Cnaeditor (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Mendaliv; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again

I've been watching your discussion at DRN with interest, though not jumping in because I have too much history with too many of the editors in that discussion to be considered neutral (and you're getting good service, it appears, from the other DRN volunteers). But I didn't want to miss the chance to say thanks again to you for standing up for me and advising me when I was a noob. It was largely due to your kindness that I stuck with WP long enough to get my feet solidly on the ground. As I said at the time, you were one of the good guys then, and still are now. Best regards, and thanks again, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey TransporterMan, nice to hear from you after so long! I still remember our encounters back in the old days, and I'm really glad to see you've stuck around and are still participating. As you might know, I haven't been as active over the past few years, but it's hard to stay away once you get access to academic databases again. I'll say this much about the United States discussion: it's definitely kept me awake during some horrifyingly dull civil procedure classes. Anyhow, thanks for the words of encouragement and see you around the Wiki! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your decision to edit the G. Robert Blakey article.

Mendaliv, Hi, my name is Doug. At this point, I'm not quite sure what I could have edited in the G Robert Blakey article. It's been a while and after my addition, it was out of sight, out of mind for me. I have to assume it has to do with my attempt to add a reference and I have to assume I didn't perform it properly. The bottom line is that I was reading Selwin Raab's "The Five Families" and there was quite a bit on Blakey and RICO. Clearly you know better than I do, how to include this reference, as it is important source material. If you could be kind enough to reintroduce this source in the references for the article, I would be grateful. If not, well, I won't lose any sleep over it. One other thing, could you please explain why you felt it was inappropriate? It seemed the only way I could reference the book was linking to Amazon's page (I think that's what I did wrong).

Sincerely, 108.204.77.49 (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Doug

Hi Doug. Part of the problem was that there was no real context to indicate that the book was relevant to Blakey himself. Furthermore, you'd stuck it in the references section, which is intended to contain material to which the article itself cites (and it doesn't cite to that book at the moment), rather than, as I now understand may have been appropriate, the Further reading section. I'd be happy to reinsert a reference in that section for you. The reason the Amazon link was no good is because Amazon is a bookseller, and Wikipedia really doesn't prefer to do this in articles. The way you'd ideally reference a book is as you would in writing a bibliography or footnote for any academic paper (the specific style isn't actually set in stone, but we have templates that ease the process). One thing that would be helpful is to know if there are any specific page ranges of that book that are relevant to Blakey.

By the way, as someone privileged to have taken a class from Professor Blakey, I'd just like to say it's great to have more people interested in writing about him. Thanks for your contributions, and welcome to Wikipedia! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

lol

I literally added something to the talk page as you sent this to me. But it's snarky. I should probably withdraw it. Sigh. Yeah, I don't know what the hell went on here with the DRN. The funny thing is, the only thing I objected to was the wording; I was fully prepared to accept the "territories part of us maybe" argument, despite disagreeing with it strongly, because that's how consensus is created, it's just that the wording was horrible. Yet... here we are. Looks like people are finally looking at other court cases, which was my argument all along: This being a court case that declared them unincorporated, the only sources we should be looking at are from the high executive, the legislative, or a higher court. A third party source cannot annex an island into the country. My argument was, naturally, ignored, because people have this idea that the person with the most sources wins Wikipedia, as long as they throw around enough WP:CAPITALLETTERS to make it sound like they know what they're talking about. I had no interest in being in a source fight, which is why I mostly took a backseat in that. --Golbez (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I caught that. Honestly that sort of comment doesn't make a difference. Nobody can see what's going on in there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y. Since you had some involvement with the J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). TCN7JM 19:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

alternative medicine

Thank you. What i'm looking for is some standartization and guidelines on using unreliable sources for unproven claims on alt med articles. I see there is a lot of misunderstanding going on with alt med. Example is position of doc james that seems to contradict yours. But the bigger point is, the editors are not sure how to write alt med articles and so gaps and absence of useful information seems to be rather very common. Ryanspir (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have to defer to Doc James to some extent given his expertise, but as you've been informed, WP:VPP may be the better venue to proceed should you wish to escalate things from WP:MEDRS. Here's the thing: you need to watch it with sources that are outright unreliable (per WP:RS) versus frowned upon for medical articles. Also keep in mind, MEDRS is a guideline not a policy (WP:PG). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:02, 9 April 2013. (UTC)

Doc James is at COI. Mainstream medicine and alt med are completing for customers. Mainstream medicine conditions doctors to distrust alt med, and even when something is really useful, such as d-mannose, not as many doctors would recommend it to their patients. Even in cases there are good research about some alt med remedies, mainstream doctors tend to frown upon it. IMHO and from my observations.

Of course there are also "progressive" mainstream doctors, that recommend their patients some alt med remedies they are familiar with, but that is rather uncommon and Doc James seems not one of them.

Regarding: "Here's the thing: you need to watch it with sources that are outright unreliable (per WP:RS) versus frowned upon for medical articles." - I don't get this one. Could you please elaborate?

Also keep in mind, MEDRS is a guideline not a policy. I was under impression that medrs is a policy. So, what is the relevant policy please? Thank you very much for your help. (I agree with your advise on WP:VPP and will follow that.) Ryanspir (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

COI is something a bit more than that. A COI would be more like if Doc Jones were a researcher into alt med who was attempting to push his own research as a source, or if he owned a pharmaceutical company that produced a competing compound attempting to write on his own products. That all said, conflicts of interest are not disruptive per se, and a COI-afflicted editor's contributions are frequently not removed... it's more that such edits are reviewed under a more strict standard.

My point re: sources that are outright unreliable vs. frowned upon by MEDRS ties into my subsequent point on guidelines versus policies. Actually, both MEDRS and WP:RS are guidelines (see WP:PG). They are pretty strongly-enforced guidelines, and describe Wikipedia practices fairly well, but they only really serve as implementations of policy, in this case WP:V. My point is that while guidelines are considered fairly compelling, to the point that virtually every articles for deletion discussion hinges on an interpretation of WP:N (itself a guideline), they aren't show-stopping if they're incorrect or being inappropriately applied. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

johncheverly talkpage comment.

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Common Core State Standards Initiative, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome pagewhich also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Specifically, please avoid use of excessive and inapplicable templates. Article maintenance templates are not to be used as badges of shame, nor to make a point. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to point out that the Article did not reflect the increasing controversy that this federal education program is gaining in, especially, Bible Belt states. There are many criticisms of this program aside from educational ones. There are a number of concerns among Christians that this program not only takes control of local schools' curriculum away from the local school boards and puts it entirely in the US Dept of Education's hands, but that it will also take away parental oversight of children. For example, there is a concern that a school principal and/or nurse may have the right to send a child to a hospital or doctor w/out the parent's/s' consent. What if the family happens to be members of the The First Church of Christ, Scientist,and does not believe in treatment by Medical Doctors??? This is just one criticism. I feel my template posting was NOT excessive and NO way hung a "badge" on anyone.johncheverly 21:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Then discuss it on the article talk page, and do not slap a bunch of templates on an article because you disagree with it in some respect. I don't care about the dispute and have no opinion on it; I only reverted your edit and warned you because your edit was disruptive. Most editors would agree that even five maintenance templates is excessive. Furthermore, I am not solely referring to that tagging incident. Please ensure that you are using templates correctly in general: This edit for instance, was a wholly incorrect use of the {{dead end}} template. Thanks. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I did discuss it on the talk page first:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Common_Core_State_Standards_Initiative It's obvious you didn't read it. With regard to the Frank Serpico article, I just deleted the dead link. Now, I am going to offer you a little advice: You don't need to come off like a stiff prick to give someone a suggestion. You need to lighten up.johncheverly 02:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I will offer a bit in return: You should read, and adhere to Wikipedia:Civility. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that link and raise you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Yeah, that's right. Instead of immediately pitching a bitch over templates, you should have stood back and assumed good faith on my part and said to yourself, "Hmmm . . .Maybe this dude is onto something. Maybe there are a lot of concerns about this Common Core Standards Initiative that the editor/s of the article haven't taken into account. Maybe I ought to actually read the lengthy "Criticism" section on the talk page than just using it to try to club another editor over the head with it in an attempt to belittle him." Oh, but I forgot, Jimmy Wales and the gang created Wikipedia just to boost your ego. In other words, knock off your condescending bullshit, because it's not doing anyone any good.johncheverly 11:11, 13 April 2013 (UT)

I apologize and am disengaging.johncheverly 00:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Go Irish!

Sorry it took me a while ot see your message. When did you graduate from ND Law? BillTunell (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bill! I'm actually finishing up my 1L year now. Finals are in a little under 2 weeks. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Best of luck. My advice, BTW, is to borrow bar review course materials (like BAR/BRI or the like) for your 1L subjects and go through those prior to your tests. That clarifies things a LOT compared to your textbooks. BillTunell (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 re-enabled

Hey Mendaliv :). Just a note that the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5 has now been re-enabled. Let us know on the talkpage if you spot any bugs. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Coated urea

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

RSN

Could you please comment on the RSN regarding Quackwatch and LA Article? I have observed that you are not 'bending' your opinion in order to satisfy other editors, but speak independently. I value this.

I'm also not sure, did I post about LA article in the right place? Because I'm not asking there if it's reliable or not, I'm asking if it's to be considered primary or a secondary source. Ryanspir (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

With respect to the Quackwatch thread, I really don't think I can contribute anything more. The reliability of Quackwatch has been brought up tens of times in the history of RSN, as searching its archives reveals. I suggest you do the same.

With respect to the LA Times article thread, you might want to note that it's a LA Times blog post, not a printed article. I'm not sure if it makes a big difference, but I will note that a search of LexisNexis does not reveal that to be an article. Another point is that articles may be primary sources for some points, and secondary sources for others. But reading that article seems to indicate that the LA Times is citing the FDA's work as its source for calling those uses of colloidal silver a fraud. I think that's within reason, particularly as the way the LA Times post is used in the article is an attributed quote, rather than a simple acceptance of the post's assertions as fact. Anyway, I don't think I would be able to contribute significantly to this RSN thread either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment

I just wanted to say thanks for the calm and cordial oppose. I wish they were all that well written and articulate. I also wanted to mention that you are correct I do hold a certain contempt for the process of RFA. The process is broken and has been for a very long time. Most know it but the community has been unable to do anything to fix it despite dozens of attempts. Its also hard to take it seriously knowing going into it that no matter how much I have done for the project I will never be allowed to edit a protected template, pull more than 25, 000 articles into AWB, block vandals who don't care about anything but tearing the project down or editing protected pages and having to ask an admin to do it and then have to explain the edit because they don't understand how to program some of the complex templates. Happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

While I can understand where you're coming from, you may need to rethink your manner of expressing this frustration towards the RfA process. In particular, I note your comment above, "no matter how much I have done for the project I will never be allowed" to wield the mop. It's easy for someone who opposes you to argue that adminship isn't a reward for hard work, missing the point that you're trying to make—that you're wanting to take on tasks that require vetting, and that you don't believe the community vetting process is giving you a fair shake. Whether that's true is beyond my expertise, and respectfully, beyond my willingness to commit time to any particular case. That may itself be a specific manifestation of the general problem: only opposers are motivated to do the deep digging needed to support an oppose, whereas few supporters are sufficiently motivated to fight opposition (and counterintuitive as it may seem, fighting opposition yourself may not generally work out: see meatball:DefendEachOther). Anyhow, best of luck, please don't let the process discourage you from continuing to contribute constructively. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Comme une image movie.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Comme une image movie.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not my original upload. Checked anyway: seems the article is on a French language film, and another editor uploaded and replaced this with the French language poster. So I won't be taking action. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Collision between MV Testbank and MV Seadaniel may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• MV ''Seadaniel''''' was a 1980 collision between ships in the Mississippi River – Gulf Outlet Canal]] (MRGO). On July 22, the outbound {{convert|485|ft|m|adj=on}} [[Germany|German]] container ship ''

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

How cool. I had no idea this bot existed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Concerns for an early Mars sample return for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Concerns for an early Mars sample return is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Warren Platts (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

File:USS.svg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:USS.svg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing I can do about the lack of author info. Maybe Brandsoftheworld (which is where I got the eps that the svg came from), or maybe US Steel itself is the author. I don't know. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

re: Rewriting Deleted Article

Hi Medaliv, I saw that you recently reviewed my content and was wondering if you could offer any feedback on developing my page (GuardNOW) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zaid231/sandbox/ I've revised it with updated references, as editors have advised me to do, and having seen the many pages you have successfully created, would greatly appreciate any tips or suggestions. Thank you for your time Zaid231 (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zaid231, I've actually seen all the references linked from that article, so my opinion is unchanged about notability. In fact, I'm looking at User:Zaid231/GuardNOW (which is empty) and User:Zaid231/sandbox/ (which was the draft I'd seen previously), and I don't see any new content. Perhaps you had drafted something and not saved the changes? Anyway, I'm more than happy to give some criticism of the article as written:

• The second paragraph of the lead section, which essentially details the services that any bodyguard/security company provides, is unnecessary and comes off as simply trying to include keywords (e.g., "Bar and Bat Mitzvahs") in close proximity to the company's name.
• The history section reads like advertising copy. "The 'aha' moment" is not particularly groundbreaking—one expects the following paragraph to be the realization of some substantial issue in previous security companies. I can tell you from my own experiences, providing personal security isn't a new invention.
• The franchising section is unnecessary, and could be rolled into a single sentence elsewhere. It also comes off as keyword manipulation.
• The celebrity clientele section has to go. It comes off as an attempt to borrow notability from the celebrities mentioned. It also comes off as keyword manipulation as well.
• You also need to ensure that the information in any statement is actually explicitly reflected in the citation used, not merely inferred from it.

In short, all the content that's in the article right now could and should be shortened and simplified. Yes, it'll look dry and possibly dull, but respectfully, we're writing about a fairly small company that's at most 3 years old. And as other editors have said, there are distinct notability issues. I frankly doubt the article as written would survive a deletion discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)